legalzoom helps you get personalized and affordable legal protection. in most states, a legal plan attorney is available with every personalized document to answer any questns. get started at legalzoom.com today. and now you're protected.

neil: kids against guns, how about, mr. president, kids as prop against debt. ♪ welcome, everybody, i'm neil nel it's the president's idea to have kids behind him to put a face on violence out of control. why not the same kids that put a face on debt that is out of control? that if they're used at props for executive action on getting guns off the street, why not props for executive action and timely getting spending under control. after all, those kids will be paying the bills for that debt, and the very real victims keep ignoring that debt. no skin on the politicians leave

it to the next generation, but tell it to that generation because the kids do not comprehend bills now, but they will know them well when they pay for it not many years from now, saddled with debt that adults refuse to pay, and now entitlement programs the kids will never see. that is not fair. that is not right. and that, my friend, is washington being childish. time for politicians today to act like adults because i think we owe it to our kids to keep them safe and sound. that would be a purpose, wouldn't it? when it comes to debt, we're no longer kidding around. steve moore on more with stopping a far more sin -- sinister violation being done to the kids right now. steve, that would be a prop well played, would it not? >> it would. you know, i've been in the town for a long time, neil, as you know, and for 25 years, i've seen politicians of both parties using children as props for

their political agenda. we saw the president do that today with his gun agenda, and it's always struck me as, i guess it struck you, that no one brings the kids up to the stage to talk about the enormous debt, which really is a form of taxation without representation if you think about it because they pay bills for things they never volted -- voted on. it's something both parties should pick up on, especially republicans if they want to have this fight with the president on the debt ceiling. you know, what are we doing about the kids that you care so much about? neil: you know, charlie, you represent young people to get their minds attune to what's going on, and the possibility, that their share of this burden will be greater, and what reaction do you get from other young folks when they hear you say that? >> a lot of young people

nowadays do not care. when you saw in november when the election was framed on social issues, they won't think about this. we are trying to use the kids, lack of a better term, as the national props why the politicians are stealing the money. my generation is going to inherit so much money that we never had a chance to earn. we have to pay that off through working extra hours and standard of living will be lower because of that. neil: your generation, guys like your age and my daughter's age or you're a little older than those showcased today, but not a lot older. you are their big brothers and sisters, and you are trying to send a message to the president that, look, this is something that bears attention as well. when you say that, and you just point out that a lot of young people don't agree with that, they like this president, they don't seem to be focused on this

spending, what's that say about your generation? >> i think my generation has been not educated properly, first of all, but, also, my generation does not care about the issues, and they are going to have to face a hard reality soon. when they graduate college, the job market, as it is, unemployment so high, they have a decision. they are going to go find a job or live with their parents, and, unfortunately, more and more kids live with their parents, but young people have to wake up, and president obama's using children as a prop to politicalize a terrible tragedy for his favor. republicans can learn a lesson. do the same for the debt ceiling. put young children saying president obamaments to continue to borrow trillion dollars a year. it's a two sided coins that they can learn from. >> the interesting thing, neil, about this is when you talk about the kids, we're talking about, you know, of course, the people of five and six years old or 10 or 15 years old, but don't forget, neil, there's generations not born yet.

neil: absolutely. >> still the gleam in the eye; right? that's another point to make. i want to touch on something you were just asking charlie about. you know, one interesting thing about the policies of this president, when you think about it, and you think about the demographic groups the president won, young people, women, hispanics, blacks, young blacks, those, if you look at the official statistics, those are the very groups most victimized by the policies in terms of high unemployment and falling incomes. that's ironic as well. neil: i look, and, you know, i guess i could have critics if they didn't like the president using kids, but, first of all, the kids were there, and their parents let them be there. in fact, a lot of the parents were in the audience there. the parents allowed it. there's something to be said if you're going to argue control on violence to showcase kids because this is really about keeping them safe so i will -- i won't quibble with that as much as i will say it's very

effective for the president to say we owe it to kids as well in another speech to look out for their future. you could go ahead and say to republicans, you want to reign in defense or control the growth of defense, too, i don't care what the purpose is, but if you're going to mention kids, remind us that they are our future. right now, to your point, charlie, they will be stuck paying some very, very big bills, but, again, it's one thing to convince people of your age, charlie, of that, and another to get the message across to just innocent little kids, but that is going to be a paramount issue because as steve pointed out, it's going to address kids still unborn, that the rate we're going, how do you tell people, charlie, that for generations yet to come, none of this is sustainable, the rate we're going. >> well, i think it's important to frame the argument in terms of morality. the president mentioned morality, that it's the moral thing to do to get gun control. is it moral to spend children's morn before they had a chance to

vote. is it moral to spend social security trust fund if the money does not exist? frame a moral pretext rather than a mathematic one. young people might be able to relate to that. they want the humane thing to happen. young people are liberal because it's the moral thing and think government can play the big brother role to make inequalities disappear, and if we form the argument in a moral text, we can really gain a lot of ground with young people. >> put a number on this, neil. neil: go ahead. >> put numbers on this. if you're talking about, again, a child just born or children that might be born ten years from now or 20 years from now, they are talking about when they become workers and productive adults, they are talking about essentially a second mortgage of anywhere between 250 and $400,000 as they start their life because of the national debt. we don't know how big the debt rises in ten years, but we know the numbers are going to be big. neil: i'm wondering, steve, if that message gets across, if politicians deliberately make

you think you can do all of this and solve the fiscal ills just raising taxes? what -- who is to blame kids if they think, well, i'm okay. i needn't worry. >> neil, i think the problem is deeper than that. the problem is simply this. the young people are going to pay need bills as i just said before, and guess what? they are not voting on head starts. they are not voting on the war in iraq or any of this stuff. who votes in america today, neil? senior citizens do. it's not any kind of mystery why we can't cut programs like medicaid, medicare, and social security that people get the benefits are the ones who vote. that really is a problem. if we want to get people like charlie's generation, their voice heard, they have to get out own vote for policies and protect their own financial interests. neil: but, charlie, you were telling me something interesting last time you were here, in the heart of hearts, young people you talked to are not that

optimistic they'll see social security or medicare, are they? >> not really. you asked them -- a classroom i went to, how many of you receive social security and medicare? it was a dim look, and i think it's because overall, they might like president obama, but they have a general distrust in government, and that's interesting dynamic because they think president obama's still going to be that transcendent figure to fix it and that washington is broken, but somehow president obama and the second term will do it differently, and the math does not lie as mr. moore appointmentedded out. each kid is going to be handed hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay off. if they buy a house, they have a national debt mortgage. it's immoral and impractical, and if we do not do the work as free marketeers or free thinkers not to educate the young people about the bills, we cannot cut the deficit or debt at all. neil: very well put. the mr. moore stuff i could do without, but well put. thank you very much. >> thank you, neil.

>> thank you. neil: louisiana,mented -- wanted to cut the state incomes tax, and now nebraska's governor state's income tax. what's happening here? what nebraska governor hopes signals politicians are seeing the light, and then, drones are seen just about everything you do. they are in the air. they are under the sea. they are drowning out your privacy everywhere. ♪ what's next?

he's going to apply testosterone to his underarm. axiron, the only underarm treatment r low t, can restore testosterone levels back to normal in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18. axiron can transfer to others through direct contact. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant, and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these signs and symptoms to your doctor if they occur. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. do not use if you have prostate or breast cancer.

serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet, or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. see your doctor, and for a 30-day free trial, go to axiron.com. neil: cornhusker playing tax buster. the republican governor is not showing taxes love. double down on cuts and a lot of cuts.

he joins republicans looking to roll back a variety of taxes. dave right now, governor, exbrain you are doing here. >> well, what i'm trying to do is create a better business tax climate in the state so that we'll create more jobs and higher paying careers for nebraskans and others who want to move here and doing that eliminating the individual income tax and corporate income tax doing away with exemptions for sales taxes that we granted over the years. it might have made sense 40 years ago, but today we should not favor one industry over another. we're competing in a global economy, and i want to do the best that i can for our citizens. neil: governor, if you get rid of the exemptions and everything else and the sales tax side, you are not rising the sales tax? the rate, itself, stays the same? >> that's right.

the rate stays the same. over the years, we've granted more exemptions than we collect in sales taxes, and that's unfortunate. there were reasons we may have done that over the years, but it no longer makes sense. we need a tax code that's simpler, fairer, and modern, and leaders in the state want simplicity and fairness. they are tired of having their lawyers and accountants mind the tax code for exemptions rather than the marketplace. they want to be able to compete, and i want to create a better environment for them, and that helps our citizens. neil: neil, i'm for an efficient tax system, but i recognize we need taxes obviously, and i'm just wondering whether it borders on irresponsible when there's so many republicans, yourself including, bobby in louisiana, and governor bob mcdonald and getting rid of the gas tax all together, whether you're fooling people? leading them to think get rid of

the taxes and survive on minor adjustments in other taxes without creating a real problem. >> neil, that's not what we're trying to do. i made it clear the plan is revenue neutral and budget neutral trying to collect the revenue because we have a certain speedometer -- responsibility in government. neil: how can that make up for just entirely taking away the state income tax? >> because right now our state income tax collects about $2.4 billion, and we exempt $5 billion in sales tax exemptions so my argument is eliminate a half of those exemptions, and you get rid of the income tax. it's simple in that regard. now, it's not that easy because there are reasons for those exemptions, but if we want a better tax climate, a modern tax system, this is what we need to do.

neil: governor, we'll watch closely. obviously, there's a trend going on here. thank you very much, sir. >> you're welcome. neil: back to federal taxes right now because they are going up a lot more than earlier thought. apparently, that cliff deal did not just bring the top rate up to 39.6%, but more like 45%. i'll explain. include surtaxes for the president's new health care plan and dramatic cut in the deductions wealthier payers are allowed, the bill is higher, and with congress showing no inically nation to cut spending, taxes to tape the spending has to go higher, maybe much higher. in fact, many more folks than just rich folks. one says it's what you don't know that's going to whack you a lot inform coming days, weeks, and months. we've also got jonas here and mad di. okay, explap. >> obama, such a good campaigner, but a terrible

president because everybody's going to be taxed across. neil: you don't like the president? >> i don't. it's bad to have a tax code that's progressive since carter. it's not good for us, because, of course, we're not bringing the revenue, can't sustain it, and we're going to be sinking. it's serious. the deductions, while that would be a tax, and obamacare, that's a huge tax, and small businesses are just being crushed. it's not working because not just the rich, but everyone is getting whacked across the board. that was not what he campaigned on. neil: you talk to accountants, and it was probably saying a lot about me that at lot i my friends are accountants, that they crunched numbers for me and came up with that 45% figure once you factor in removed deductions or limited deductions so if i'm hearing talks that nancy pelosi and others are not done taxes, but want to move after the rich more, climbing over 50% is not a big leap, and leaving it just to the rich and thinking that the rest will not

be affected -- >> right. neil: there's a lot more to come. >> right, and, you know, looking at the democrats' plan and the president's plan for spending over the next ten years, we know they want to tax the rich more. they want to take that rate up to 50% or so of the richest income. there's just not enough money there. they can't pay for these explosive spending levels that they foresee for the next ten years, so it's right in the sense they are going to come off new taxpayers if they can't bleed the rich anymore to fund big government, but the benefit of having the fiscal cliff behind us is that the argument is not about taxes. now we're talking about spending. republicans, leader mcconnell on the hill, speaker boehner say we're done. we solved the problem of baselines that are flux waiting every two years, we know where we are on the revenue side, and now all the fights need to come on spending, and conservatives are in a good position to talk bow size of government and cutting back a lot of the pelosi, reid, and obama spending binge. neil: you know, i look at the

numbers, and, jonas, there's just no way you can get there alone on taxes, that hark to the fact that the the "wall street journal" had tax all their money, $1.3 trillion, does not address the deficit just this year. so you have to get more money from other folks; right? >> no question taxes did not go up enough to settle the budget, the hole of the major spending cuts. obama talks about the clinton years, but taxes were higher for lower income, families, child credits were not there, and lower rates. what's the problem is it did not apply to people and added layers of complexity to an already ridiculously complex tax code. as an investment advisers you have to deal with rates, created new ones nowings baa there's an additional 3.6, and if you're at this income, there's .9%, and you're creating many more bracts, not -- brackets.

there's rates from 0, 5, 15, i think there's a 23.9 all for different levels, and then types of income. buying gold, that's taxed at 5 rate, stocks is ooe thing, and, you know, partnerships, it's totally complicated, and is not going to raise a lot of money versus the progressiveness of the tax code, but the multilayer complexity, a progressive simple tax code would be easier to deal with, remove the deductions and a complicated weird way to analyze the impact and mortgage deduction apply as much. phases out. we have a phase out called amt. neil: bill clinton maybe has the best example. he raised income taxes, but he lowered a lot of investment related taxes. that was enough to impress even art laffer who voted for the guy twice. i wonder whether that is the solution. that if you're going to tax, fine, okay. i'm not a big fan, but you have to provide a tax code somewhere

else, and that's what's missing here. >> well, there's too much taxation, and the spending is incredibly just overwhelming. that's the problem, obviously, the spheppedding problem, and, really, i'm frustrated as a republican because i want to see the republicans be as aggressive it not more aggressive than obama has been about taxes. where are they being aggressive? they are not doing it. i hope that boehner and company, what they come up with -- cut the spending because that's obviously the big problem. as far as taxes, everything, you know, businesses, if they are crushed, they will leave the country. we will make businesses leave left and right. that will happen. we can't have that. we have to be just as friendly capitalistic. it's not happening. neil: the test will be the debt ceiling fight. >> you're right. neil: four to five weeks out, the exsense of the sequestering cuts, and what they do with that, but i don't see anything encouraging in republicans' behavior leading me to believe

they'll risk another fight with the president. >> i disagree. we're in a stronger position. missing call cliff, if nothing happens, president obama and the democrats got a tax hike. you know, inertia was against us at that point, but nos -- now it's a fight of more spending, and we're not about to give that to them. they need signing off on the -- neil: we'll see. i mean, republicans kind of folded like cheap suits on that. i don't care on the left or right, where you are, but it was 40-1 tax hikes over spending cuts. what balances that? 20-1? >> it was not enough -- it's -- i disagree that the bottom 98% of the income distribution is getting over taxed. they are getting complex tax. there's a lot of work to get the rate down to nothing. neil: you're for screwing us more? >> simple higher level without -- neil: there you go. i admire that. guys, thank you very much. in the meantime, this just in,

kate upton starring in a super bowl ad for mercedes, and the president might want to leave the whole fashion things up to models like her because z newest accessory is causing quite an uproar.

neil: well, the residence in washington, d.c. tell us they are getting the shaft. they pay taxes through the nose, but have no representative in congress. today, they have a presidential license plate to make the point. this point on this license plate. president ordering all white house vehicles to use the no taxation without representation. tea party dana says this president has been all taxation with no representation. that's a very good point, but i think you have to do more than a license plate to make a

statement. i think what's going on here is a loud statement that we're going to get a lot more taxation, whether there's representation for it or not. >> yeah, absolutely. neil, i have to say that i'm so glad to see politicians embrace a cause that's bigger than all of the issues that we're facing today which is, of course, themselves, because that's what this is all about. the district of columbia was never meant to be the me -- metropolis it is today. the founders were clear, they didn't want it in a state government or anything of that matter. it was supposed to be sovereign in that way, and now because of government excess, we have representatives in dc whose job it seems to be to increase the size and scope of government and want more representation for themselves. it's a little ironic. neil: a lot of political crowd as well, heavy, heavy democratic, i think, michael got 90% of the vote in 1988, but

leaving that aside, there are many, like yourself, who argue there's not a flip side to all of this push for taxation or for measures, cliff measures of the like, that are so grossly dispore force -- disproportional on taxes. what do you do about that? >> yeah, that's the whole battle we face now with the debt ceiling and everything else, and the fiscal cliff was a dollar and spending cuts for $4 for revenue. neil: try $40, yeah. >> excuse me, exactly. where's our representation? we can see -- neil: what happened to tea party? even in the 82 of them came to the new house in the takeover in 2010, elected john boehner speaker of the house, and he returns the favor by pitting them almost into the witness

protection program. where is their gusto, their zest? what happened? >> i think they are still building their numbers so to speak. there's been a lot of people in the house that have been, i think, quietly organizing to get a voice opposite john boehner. i'm not a huge boehner fan, but at the same time, i think if you're going to stage a mutiny, you need someone in the wings to challenge him public by. neil: who would that be? i wondered that because it was not questioned in the election. there were few -- >> that's the question. neil: yeah, so, you know, i wonder how do they get their monetary -- mojo back. is it too late? they sent a warning, look, we accepted great bodily injuryingly -- grudgingly what you had to do, don't try it again. what happens if we have another deal, a debt ceiling deal or something that is of the same milk?

>> i'm sensing both -- i can see both sides of the argument with this. i understand wanting to storm the castle, but get the foot in the door first, but at the same time, people like boehner realize they are dancing on the edge of the cliff here so to speak, in trouble of losing the entire base, ultimately the goal of the administration. they want to divorce the grassroots base from the plan party, looking two years ahead at midterm and looking at tactical issues and not the overall strategy, but a lot of this, nemo, goes back to the state level as well. who are voters going to elect to represent them in two years? how are voters holding elected officials' feet to the fire in their own state? we have to see more of that. ultimately, that's the pathway to get real change in the house, and that's really the way we're going to be able to enforce the values. neil: overcome the mainstream media, cast full of nuts and crazy and the occupy wall street

guys are the normal guys. the world's upside down, and i understand that, but we have to take the defensive because what's going on here is offensive, you know? >> yeah, yeah, and, neil, every time we see the administration, jay carney, president obama, or vice president biden answer questions about any fiscal issues or this particular issue, it should be matched every single day with either boehner or some other congressional republican doing the exact same thing. they need to start fighting fire with fire. neil: good point. fair and balanced. good seeing you again. >> thank you, you too. neil: kelly clarkson added to the program for ceremonies today. i guess that makes two idols that will be there, kelly and, of course, me. everyone, see lots of us monday on fox news and fox business at 11:30 a.m. eastern time on this fine channel covering the inauguration itself, on back at 4 p.m. switching over to fox news, and a few hours later, 8

p.m. on fox business. they say, neil, that's a very long they, cold out there. what are you doing to stay warm? well, i don't know. all right. in the meantime, first, that is one small confession for this armstrong, one giant flood gate of lawsuits. ♪ [ roasting firewood ]

♪ many hot dogs are within you. try pepto-bismol to-go, it's the power of pepto, but it fits in your pocket. now tell the world daniel... of pepto-bismol to-go. pull out the paper and...what!!?? an article that says a typical family pays $155,000 in "wall street" fees on their 401(k)s? seriously? seriously. you don't believe it? search it, "401k 1k." >> this is a test trade. and roll over your old 401(k)s to a new e-trade retirement account. we have every type of retirement account. none of them charge annual fees, and all of them offer low cost investments. why? because we're not your typical wall street firm, that's why. so you keep more of your money. e-trade. less for us. more for you.

neil: let me be brief. lance armstrong is spinning his wheels. he might have hung up his bike, but he is forever going to be on the hook for lawsuits that are piling up. he could be paying a lot more than he ever thought. how much more? well, let's check in with our guest attorney. what do you think? >> i think he's looking at tens of millions of dollars as. the beginning of this year. then we are going to see

teammates come forward and say defamation not to mention the sunday times and endorsers. they have have party decided this is welcome as well they should. neil: someone told me he is worth about $100 billion. >> i am going to defend the indefensible here. let's start with the post office. obviously he did exactly what the contract said. there is a morality clause, which may bring him into trouble, but in terms of figures that show that he was being sponsored by the post office -- >> it is the essential term. >> well, he's going to say that i wrote it.

>> he has to fill the term of the contract. >> the sponsors, i think, he has a better shot with sponsors. neil: did he do it when the statue of limitations is up. >> certainly wouldn't go into any tv show to confess the crime, but i also think that there may be some deals behind the scenes you're going on. neil: what would be going on? >> maybe he would agree to pay certain amount of money. but right now will be on the books as he could be looking at images up to $100 million just on that one lawsuit. neil: any of these suits could they be bundled together?

>> it probably couldn't do it because there's so many different variables and contracts at once. with respect to some of us, i don't think the sponsors have a shot. lance armstrong wore their emblem. he obviously did what he needed to do. he made them more profitable. neil: that is why some of them are raising taxes. >> that's right, not all of them. but it's money. nike wants to get the money back, it's about the money they spent. someone said they are not going to buy those nike sneakers because lance armstrong's when the people that they endorsed. [talking over each other] [talking over each other] [talking over each other] neil: sawicki thing?

>> if he goes to trial, this is a forgiving nation. >> they're going to say he said he was sorry. >> no, no, no -- he didn't actually say he was sorry. neil: policy?

>> he's 41 years old. apparently he wants to have his lifetime ban lifted. neil: in order to do what? >> to try again and beavis amazing cyclist again. i don't see that happening. >> we have seen it with michael vick and others areas. neil: she does raise a good point. >> he is in tomorrow but i don't think america will forgive him and i don't think a jury will either. >> they are going to look at him as a cancer patient and look what he did. >> at least $500 million -- to raise awareness for cancer, that is fantastic. many people are going to say thank you, lance, his actions will be forgiven.

>> was a partly a scheme to hide money? neil: are you saying that sorry won't cover it? >> sorry will not cover it. [talking over each other] neil: when we come back, a quick quiz for you. take a guess which of these ingredients could be in your next hamburger. the sickening answer in two minutes. [ male announcer ] eligible for medicare? that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and save you up to thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs.

call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about. and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and you'll never need a referral to see a specialist. there's a range of plans to choose from, too. and they all travel with you. anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. call today. remember, medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay -- expenses that could really add up.

these kinds of plans could save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs... you'll be able choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and you never need referrals. so don't wait. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions, and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you. neil: we asked you what could be in your next hamburger? pork or beef or mr. ed? all of them together. at least that is what

authorities found in hamburger meat in britain and ireland. unless it's between two slices of the bread, and i just say well, i don't know if i want that. anyway, it is said that even though this mystery meat was in europe, it may be here as well. >> this is very possible. over 70% of meat has what is called extra pink fine. neil: what is that? >> leftover scrap of allsop of meat. they grind it up and put it into

hamburger meat. on top of that, last year the government bought 7 million pounds of it to put into school wants me. neil: i remember years ago about hotdogs. what do you think? >> well, when it comes to ground meat or meat products, if it is 100% beef, it is 100% me. if you see things like buy products or righty on the label, then there should be -- you know, maybe other parts about the product. the. neil: at the grocery store it

looks fresh and it looks like everything is hunky dory but you have no idea that we are eating mr. ed. what would be the limitations are? in the united states he wouldn't be able to get away with that. is that true? >> i don't necessarily think so. i think our legislators are now looking at this problem here. like i said, the pink fine issue that we were dealing with here. neil: and the pink fine is something included in the? >> yes, it is. neil: they should probably rename that as pink slime. >> what about when you go to a mcdonald's or you go to your local pub in the buyer burger. you don't know what's necessarily in there. the question is, i believe that the corporations should access suppliers have a duty to make sure that what they are buying had this number of ingredients

and disclose that. neil: as a nutritionist, i'm sure you're telling your patience, look, we want to get you off of processed foods. a lot of them say that i will say get fresh beef or i won't touch what's in the box. but now it is the stuff you got that utah is not processed may be worse than the worst processed food you can imagine. >> when it comes to buying food, that is why i am a proponent of clean eating. choosing food in the most natural state. we and cuts of meat i feel good about. a lot of good nutrition and them. you really need to think about the processes them.

now we have a public health concern, not just a mental health concern about what you're eating. >> the usda does inspect all of the poultry and eggs and everything. if you are concerned about -- for whatever reason, for ethical reasons, if you're concerned

about chicken being in your deepwater beat being in your chicken mashed but what's worse, it's not registering. it's different. the. neil: is their horsemen in here. [laughter] >> i don't want to eat course. i don't eat dog meat either. neil: did you ever wonder what they are going to do with all of these drones? uncle sam is bearing down. that's coming up next.

the. neil: not to drone on, but lawmakers are pushing the banning of drones. they are not just in the air. now we are learning that they are going undersea very soon. be careful what you are doing on your next cruise. >> the biggest reason why is that they exist. at the but the technology is out

there, it's cutting edge. the cops are allowing them to conduct surveillance, although for the most part, we saw these questions -- the department of defense that half of those permits. nobody really knows why, although it's for research and stuff like that. 24% of those permits are held by universities that are using it to study wildlife. they were snapping pictures left and right, but that makes it

harder and take pictures in my backyard -- not that i'm doing anything wrong -- i find it weird that there are so many of these able to do so much. against such a broad swath of the population. >> i'm going to be a lot more reluctant to call them if something happens. with my police don't respect me, why should i respect them?

to be one that's a very good point, michael. thank you so much. when we come back, did you know that wearing a dark suit and make you look 10 pounds lighter? did you know the trillion dollar coin and make the debt ceiling disappear? we have the real skinny after this.